Over here in the first half of the year not enough vaccines were available, mostly due to inept german female Peter principled into EU. Which led to vaccination centers inflating cost like crazy but often empty as no vaccines could be given. Led also to socialist wet dream of giving the recipients no decision at all on what vaccine they were "offered". AZ flip/flopping through age group targets gave rise to my age group being "offered" only double doses of AZ, earlier (younger) recipients getting mRNA as 2. shot after thrombosis finds.

I was not too worried on side effects of AZ, but felt that short term benefit of getting AZ vaccination in May vs. mRNA as possible choice starting end of July reasonable due to much higher efficacy (.90 does not sound that bad compared to .96, but when calculated as 1-efficacy, 10% vs 4% of catching Corona [not Covid19, but similar differences expected there as well] is something to consider).

Starting July deliveries planned were ample and my plan end of April was not to accept AZ early, wait till mid August if necessary to get better immunity via mRNA then throughout winter - in summer incidence is lower and severity of Covid19 per infection and get 2. shot still in September is long enough before expected hike in incidence in October. Turned down 3 "offers" of double AZ in May and early June. Merkel an a few others got their first AZ shot (noted duly by our press in headlines), I watched UK closely for delta variant and mostly AZ used there and home statistics for FRA.

First reports of clinical tests of heterologous vaccination (which was given here to all under 60 with only 1st shot of AZ) - you probably read them as well, the Oxford human study with a few 100 humans and a few animal studies, all pointing to antibody response well above double AZ, near or even minimally above double mRNA shots. Also cell response of heterologous well above double mRNA, but slightly below double AZ.

In mid June delta absolute # had shown steady slow growth in my town for 8 weeks, probably often imported via air. Caught splitting headache, tested twice negative. Decided to roll the dice, went to doctors (the first 2 wishing to follow official directions offering me only double AZ), then found one promising me 2. dose Biontech after AZ (decided on Biontech not on "vaccine distrust" for Moderna, but because the combination AZ/Pfizer was standard here, with a few million already done to watch for side effects with that combination).

Few days after my first shot Merkel gets 2nd shot (Moderna... not covered in press headlines) and in early July the STIKO now lifts 2nd AZ shot after first AZ shot - now it is free choice even for old geezers like me.

Drawbacks for me: decision was based not on scientific double blind study, only on small scientific level2 and my own thinking. 2nd drawback: might not always be recognized as "immune" (States for instance...) as not a double "standard" vaccination - but I am certain if I need 2nd mRNA, I can NOW get a 2nd mRNA (3rd overall) within days if need to travel stateside arises. Genetic offshoots (adults well under 30) went with double Pfizer.

Politics following my reasoning was half expected, in part as deliveries picked really up and AZ can be given to poor nations. Realizing that Merkel also received AZ/mRNA combo few days after me deciding for that combo (and before STIKO changed its official mind) to get shots earlier dampened worries here well enough. Will get big blood checkup within a few days to get numbers - also antibody counts, so I can decide on numbers on booster shots.

Current knowledge is that first AZ gets more side effects of double AZ, 2nd Pfizer is harder of double mRNA - but getting highest chance of side effects from both sides did not worry me. - Anecdotal from here: 1st (AZ) was a real breeze (similar to the "high" directly after being sick), 2nd got me some discomfort - a few days only doing absolutely necessary stuff. Pressed the arm often to verify it was not all hypochondria, but only went from bed into sun and back (and not much else).

If my rambling gets another geezer to reverse opinion and get shots, it was worth it
thomas

>For interest, which version did you have? I ask because unpublished scuttlebutt is that mRNA vaccines program a temporary spike protein antibody response but not a T-cell response that some now say is more important and more permanent in human immunity against Covid viruses. If true, this could explain the infected vaccinated people in countries that emphasized the mRNA option. Apparently even a 3rd dose isn't stopping infection, while (at least so far) *re*-infections seem to be relatively infrequent.
>
>This always was the risk when these therapies had to be rushed to market to satisfy public demand, so no use blaming politicians if scientific truisms like "science is never settled" turn out to be correct. If there is future resentment it is likely to be re shaping of information as if for children, rather than providing a balanced picture for adults to decide.
>
>If the T-cell hypothesis is true, it also means that the popular antibody immunity test isn't as useful as thought, though there is no scalable affordable T-cell test- at least not yet. Perhaps that can be the next big Pharma bonanza. ;-)
>
>Certainly the older you are, statistically the less emphasis needed wrt long term effects, making the decision easier. For youngsters, as you say the risk-benefit curve is less clear, even without other uncertainties like the "Pfizer Boob Job" (apparently young women experiencing breast cup size increases after Pfizer injection; discounted by authorities but plenty of young women swearing it's true, along with other rumors like accumulation of injected material in ovaries; true or not?) that it can't be much fun for people expected to go on national TV to express certainties...